Plot: The plot is based on the novel by Valerie Martin and takes a different approach to the Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde story; here we are treated to a household maid's view of the story. In the original story the Jekyll household indeed has a maid called Mary Reilly whom has some importance to Dr. Jekyll and as such the plot is good and can give a different point of view to the story. But the adaptation does have its holes or should we say omissions, there's no way that the household won't get some gossip about the actions of Mr. Edward Hyde, even if they don't at first connect the dots, and I don't believe or have seen in other adaptations of the story that Mr. Hyde is in any way trying to hide his misdoings. Dr. Jekyll does look tired and exhausted, as he should, but he doesn't seem to be effected much by the doings of Mr. Hyde, now at first he isn't even aware of Mr. Hyde's nightly escapades but since the good doctor indeed is a very smart man he'll soon figure out that the guilty culprit is his own alter-ego. He does try to stop Mr. Hyde but there just don't seem to be much willpower behind. Mary herself is well enough carried over it seems, there at least seems to be some genuine concern in the character. Now it has to be said that I haven't read the novel, but with the knowledge I have of the basic story, I'll have to say that the adaptation is well enough but I do find it lacking, we lack something of the grisly escapades of Mr. Hyde and the research conducted by Dr. Jekyll, whichever way we put it, Mary must at least have heard some rumors and seen some research one way or the other. In fact this is part where this plot and adaptation falls slightly apart, we don't get that feeling of contempt or chock over what Mr Hyde is doing because we don't get to see anything until the very last moment and then more in flashback than real-time. Otherwise in fits well enough into the age in which it's placed (Victorian) but it's evident that this is an American movie set in Victorian England. The story is enjoyable enough but lacks the grisly business as described above.
Actors: The actors do an okay performance but this won't win any of them an award for good acting, there doesn't seem to be much emotion towards what the Hyde character does, either they haven't got any more clue than somebody who doesn't know the setup or the writers/directors haven't been able to convey this to the actors. Julie Roberts does portray Mary Reilly good enough but doesn't have the right accent; it's easy to hear that she's an American because she doesn't have that London way of speaking. Otherwise there isn't much to fault her in that doesn't go for all involved actors. Michael Gambon does a very good portray of Mary's Father, a very abusive one at that, but this is in line with the age and the way that life was at the time in the poor quarters. We don't see him that much but what we see of him is well within his character, heck if you didn't know you wouldn't even notice that it's him (always a good sign), so he's probably the actor with the best performance in this movie. John Malkovich does a good job as Mr. Edward Hyde, but his portrayal of Dr. Henry Jekyll is lacking in warmth or in the caring that the character originally has for his fellow people. He is usually good at these semi-dark character portrayals but his aura somehow lacks that quality that is needed for a character of Dr. Jekyll's type. Glenn Close is also hard to place, as I don't know that much of her character, Mrs. Farraday. The character seems like one that Dr. Jekyll wouldn't be friends with, she has a very gruff tone and appears to be one that won't have any one push her around and yet she'll do anything for Dr. Jekyll, but as I said I don't have enough knowledge of the character. Her performance also seems to be missing something that I can't quite place, but I'll take a chance that it's the same that the others lacks.
Effects: The clothes and sets (such as the operating theater) looks to be of the right time period as does the props, the only thing that I have any gripes about is Mary's noose, now I can't remember the description of her that I have heard but that noose looks wrong, it's clearly a fake noose and looks out of place on Julia Roberts.
Overall: The overall feeling I'm left is that this movie is a good enough time waster when shown on TV; it's not one that I would pay to see in a theater. I will probably buy it on DVD at some point but only because of the alternative view of the Jekyll/Hyde story. I would give this a 6 on a scale from 1-10 due to the Jekyll/Hyde factor.
Actors: The actors do an okay performance but this won't win any of them an award for good acting, there doesn't seem to be much emotion towards what the Hyde character does, either they haven't got any more clue than somebody who doesn't know the setup or the writers/directors haven't been able to convey this to the actors. Julie Roberts does portray Mary Reilly good enough but doesn't have the right accent; it's easy to hear that she's an American because she doesn't have that London way of speaking. Otherwise there isn't much to fault her in that doesn't go for all involved actors. Michael Gambon does a very good portray of Mary's Father, a very abusive one at that, but this is in line with the age and the way that life was at the time in the poor quarters. We don't see him that much but what we see of him is well within his character, heck if you didn't know you wouldn't even notice that it's him (always a good sign), so he's probably the actor with the best performance in this movie. John Malkovich does a good job as Mr. Edward Hyde, but his portrayal of Dr. Henry Jekyll is lacking in warmth or in the caring that the character originally has for his fellow people. He is usually good at these semi-dark character portrayals but his aura somehow lacks that quality that is needed for a character of Dr. Jekyll's type. Glenn Close is also hard to place, as I don't know that much of her character, Mrs. Farraday. The character seems like one that Dr. Jekyll wouldn't be friends with, she has a very gruff tone and appears to be one that won't have any one push her around and yet she'll do anything for Dr. Jekyll, but as I said I don't have enough knowledge of the character. Her performance also seems to be missing something that I can't quite place, but I'll take a chance that it's the same that the others lacks.
Effects: The clothes and sets (such as the operating theater) looks to be of the right time period as does the props, the only thing that I have any gripes about is Mary's noose, now I can't remember the description of her that I have heard but that noose looks wrong, it's clearly a fake noose and looks out of place on Julia Roberts.
Overall: The overall feeling I'm left is that this movie is a good enough time waster when shown on TV; it's not one that I would pay to see in a theater. I will probably buy it on DVD at some point but only because of the alternative view of the Jekyll/Hyde story. I would give this a 6 on a scale from 1-10 due to the Jekyll/Hyde factor.